In early 2001, over a dozen privacy bills were introduced in Congress. But after Sept 11, 2011, the narrator (Hoback himself) intones: “all privacy legislation was either killed or abandoned and the PATRIOT Act was, of course, initiated.”

*shrugs* I'm tech savvy and I really just don't care. For the most part. Anything that could financially impact me or result in identity theft is another matter. That is MY opinion. If others want to be up in arms over this. Fine. More power to them. I'm not going to look down on their opinion or think they are wrong.

You can try to stretch the fourth amendment , but once you stretch it so much to the point of changing the meaning of an amendment like what happened to the second one, you are effectively rewriting the amendment , via sloppy interpretation, thus devaluating the US constitution .

As cliche as it sounds, the terrorists won. And they won way before Sept 11, 2001. That date was just the turning point when the general population gave "Patriotic" consent to blanket information collection in the name of bodily security. Its effects have been largely negligible (e.g. bombing, shootings, kidnappings).

Privacy law needs to get stronger as technology allows more and more casual data collection/analysis, not weaker.

And to those that aren't worried about this because you have nothing to hide -- you always have something to hide from someone. Your finances, your personal private interests, your political affiliation, your religion (or lack thereof), those you associate with, even words you search on Google to figure out how the hell they're spelled. Any one of those data points, if revealed to the wrong person or entity, could negatively affect your life in some small or large way. That random curiosity about micro-penis and Google searching it on a whim gets leaked to your boss and suddenly you don't get a promotion and you don't even know why (guess the other guy was just better qualified, right?). Or, even more innocently, a friend finds out you once selected atheism on the religious section of your Facebook profile and they decide not to send a wedding invite to you.

All data matters, no matter how innane, and pretending it doesn't is dishonest. We have a right to our privacy and our anonymity, whether its written in a leather-bound diary under our pillow or on the hallowed servers of Tumblr. Security through obscurity is becoming less and less effective. We need real privacy laws and consequential punishments for those who break them.

This phrase is meaningless. Which terrorists have won? There's a thousand fractious groups each with their own goals - pretty specific ones. Some want to counter US/western influence that keeps them out of power, others just hate Israel and Jews, and others are truly radical militant Islamists. The US could strike all protections out of the Constitution, and none of their stated goals (eradication of Isreal, US out of Asia, etc.) would be accomplished. It's a lazy simplification to call terrorists "freedom hating." Our loss of freedom is completely orthogonal to their goals (except insomuch as it costs the US money to do so).

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Pick any organization you like. They won.

The whole concept of a "war on terror" is stupid because you cannot effectively wage war on an emotion or state of mind in the way you wage war on a foreign (or domestic) foe. I'd like to believe you understand that, but your post implies you don't.

When people say "the terrorists have won" they are saying that America is terrorized. We have given up a fuckton of liberty for the illusion of security. We have given up all our privacy. We even voted in congress 205-217 to not have privacy.

I could go on further in a rant about a lot of the bullshit that's happened, but I think I really just need to point at the Ars archives for further evidence. Note, I didn't say "proof". Just evidence. Interpret it as you will.

This phrase is meaningless. Which terrorists have won? There's a thousand fractious groups each with their own goals - pretty specific ones. Some want to counter US/western influence that keeps them out of power, others just hate Israel and Jews, and others are truly radical militant Islamists. The US could strike all protections out of the Constitution, and none of their stated goals (eradication of Isreal, US out of Asia, etc.) would be accomplished. It's a lazy simplification to call terrorists "freedom hating." Our loss of freedom is completely orthogonal to their goals (except insomuch as it costs the US money to do so).

Obviously they haven't won in the sense that their primary goals are achieved, but they encouraged us to allow our government to spy on us with our blessing. I think they'll take that as a win, however small or inconsequential to them.

As for who "they" are, anyone that uses threats of violence of those not in power (and largely innocent) to coerce a response out of world leaders that has a positive outcome for them.

I've tried to surf the web preventing 3rd party cookies. It's not like Flash or a lot of the stuff NoScript blocks where I just go somewhere else. Even mandatory things like my bank website don't work without cookies.

I am as protected as I am because I try really hard. While Incognito tabs and such are a big step forward, average users need more and simpler tools to block unknown data transmission. At least when you tell Facebook something you later regret, you KNEW you told them.

I'm always frustrated by these kinds of movies. I want to see them, but they're usually never shown at a good theatre - probably just some out of the way place and you have to search the listings to actually find if anyone is showing it.

So you wait for the eventual DVD release, except, they always come out quietly and by the time they do, you've forgotten all about it and in the end never bother seeing it. There's probably a dozen good documentaries that Ars and others have mentioned that I've miseed, and I can't remember their titles to go see 'em.

Anyhow from the writeup, this movie is less about the government spying on its people, and more about how corporations are spying on the people. The government is just taking advantage of that fact. Facebook lets people post about themselves online (and they do so willingly because of a piece of marketing everyone fell for called "privacy settings" - there is no privacy online). Google does it by tracking people through its extensive set of web sites, CDNs, properties, and third party companies they own (through advertising - Google owns practically all online ad networks, even though they won't attach their name to it. Which is why you'll see it as "DoubleClick Inc" and not "DoubleClick, a Google company". (Yes, it also means Google owns some of the nastiest ad popups and popunder innovations as well).

The government is merely taking advantage of people's willingness to give up that information.

What I find especially creepy is how Facebook tracks my actions on third-party websites.

For example, the other day, I searched for a hotel on Hotwire.com. Moments later, Facebook's sidebar ads were offering me a hotel in the very city that was the subject of my search.

This happens all the time, unfortunately. I imagine it would be different if I opened an Incognito tab for every little thing I did, but it's sad that I have to go to those lengths to keep Facebook from gathering information about me that isn't even being created on their site.

This should form part of Primer that everyone needs to watch before using the Internet.

When I was growing up (yes, I'm and old man), none of the S#!7 that I said to my friends/family etc was recorded! It was mostly said face-2-face, in person. The context was understood, and clear. (Let's face it, we've all said stupid things that we wish we could un-say). People can forgive and forget; the Internet doesn't!

Kids today will never experience that, since they're conditioned to "SHARE" everything online!

Having the government, corporations, or friends making decisions about me, based on some idle tweet taken out of context, is bloody scary!

As cliche as it sounds, the terrorists won. And they won way before Sept 11, 2001. That date was just the turning point when the general population gave "Patriotic" consent to blanket information collection in the name of bodily security. Its effects have been largely negligible (e.g. bombing, shootings, kidnappings).

Privacy law needs to get stronger as technology allows more and more casual data collection/analysis, not weaker.

And to those that aren't worried about this because you have nothing to hide -- you always have something to hide from someone. Your finances, your personal private interests, your political affiliation, your religion (or lack thereof), those you associate with, even words you search on Google to figure out how the hell they're spelled. Any one of those data points, if revealed to the wrong person or entity, could negatively affect your life in some small or large way. That random curiosity about micro-penis and Google searching it on a whim gets leaked to your boss and suddenly you don't get a promotion and you don't even know why (guess the other guy was just better qualified, right?). Or, even more innocently, a friend finds out you once selected atheism on the religious section of your Facebook profile and they decide not to send a wedding invite to you.

All data matters, no matter how innane, and pretending it doesn't is dishonest. We have a right to our privacy and our anonymity, whether its written in a leather-bound diary under our pillow or on the hallowed servers of Tumblr. Security through obscurity is becoming less and less effective. We need real privacy laws and consequential punishments for those who break them.

Do you think they'll stop at metadata?

All those problems about "privacy" that you list are not going to solve any of the problems that your society have with itself and you. In fact, what you propose as a solution for your social problems are just a perpetuation for the underlying cultural and social problems that keeps you living like little the mouse in the house

Let's go back to the 50's, how do you solve the problem of social acceptance for homosexuals? . What is the real problem do you have?

A) The problem to remain in the closet foreverB) The problem to be openly homosexual without being lynched

The message of your post is so utterly and fundamentally wrong . And people does not realize but terrorists are wining support and aid from people like Snowden.

I meant , you can wear your virtual Niqab if you want , but i prefer to be free from that social conformism that you love so much to protect.

*shrugs* I'm tech savvy and I really just don't care. For the most part. Anything that could financially impact me or result in identity theft is another matter. That is MY opinion. If others want to be up in arms over this. Fine. More power to them. I'm not going to look down on their opinion or think they are wrong.

There exists studies that indicates that the average American today commit 3 felonies each day, every day, year out year in, and, as Alexandr Solzhenitsyn declared half a century ago, "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal."

But the point is, that that, is only one tiny part of a much larger complex of interrelated issues contained within the concept of privacy, and that most people in western democracies never seems to reach beyond the "nothing to hide" argument, which basically only adress that minor part, while excluding all the rest.

I would say that when you see thousands of German's in the streets protesting against surveillance, it is well worth to take notice, since they have something I think many of us commenting here dont have: intimate personal knowledge and experience.

The whole concept of a "war on terror" is stupid because you cannot effectively wage war on an emotion or state of mind in the way you wage war on a foreign (or domestic) foe. I'd like to believe you understand that, but your post implies you don't.

Not that I'm a particular fan of it, but the "War on Terror" is not a war against an emotion, it's a struggle against acts of terrorism and those who want to commit them. I'd like to believe you understand that...

Quote:

When people say "the terrorists have won" they are saying that America is terrorized. We have given up a fuckton of liberty for the illusion of security. We have given up all our privacy. We even voted in congress 205-217 to not have privacy.

So? Do you think those freaks on 9/11 sacrificed themselves to get America terrorized? You think they promised a bunch of virgins in paradise if America drops a couple of Amendments?

The terrorists did NOT win. Their goal was to topple America, rid its power, drive them from the Holy Land. None of that was accomplished.

-Sometimes I wonder how naive people are. Our lives have changed drastically in the last 15 years or so. And that wasn't 9/11. Cellphones became ubiquitous, as did the internet. With all the communication happening here, with all the data people are dumping on the web, traces they're leaving, how can anybody believe the secret agencies of the world could NOT tap that source. Honestly, once you accept they exist, you have to accept they snoop. And with the relentlessness of Moore's Law and all the processing power it brought fourth, PRISM was just INEVITABLE.

the "War on Terror" is not a war against an emotion, it's a struggle against acts of terrorism and those who want to commit them.

Supposedly. But I have yet to see evidence that the prices that we pay for this "War of Terror" actually achieves anything. Or that those prices are necessary to increase safety.

Take airport security. Given the millions transported every year, the ~3000 people that died a a result of the 9/11 attacks (+ the people who have died from other attacks), are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of all people transported by air over the past decades. That's evidence that airport security of the kind that existed before the attack was stupendously successful. So why was billions of taxpayer money spent on equipment? Why are we spending millions of extra hours of time and frustration standing in lines and getting harassed and groped? Supposedly because it increases our security, but again, we have been given no evidence of that.

As a consumer, would you agree to years of payments and harassment in exchange for a product or service that may or may not work? I wouldn't; and I don't see why that should change when I'm paying for a service from the government.

The terrorists did NOT win. Their goal was to topple America, rid its power, drive them from the Holy Land.

Well-organized terrorist groups aren't run by idiots. Do you really think that they expected one attack to "topple America"? That one attack would make America give up decades of foreign policy? Their goal was to extract a price from America for the various sins that perceive America to have committed. There, they have succeeded. An attack that was not, even remotely, an existentialist threat was turned into one by America itself.

There is shooting yourself in the foot. Then, there's the "War on Terror".

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Pick any organization you like. They won.

The whole concept of a "war on terror" is stupid because you cannot effectively wage war on an emotion or state of mind in the way you wage war on a foreign (or domestic) foe. I'd like to believe you understand that, but your post implies you don't.

When people say "the terrorists have won" they are saying that America is terrorized. We have given up a fuckton of liberty for the illusion of security. We have given up all our privacy. We even voted in congress 205-217 to not have privacy.

I could go on further in a rant about a lot of the bullshit that's happened, but I think I really just need to point at the Ars archives for further evidence. Note, I didn't say "proof". Just evidence. Interpret it as you will.

Not only that, but we are presumed as guilty as they (terrorists) are. We just get to wander around in a much larger minimum security resort known as the Free World (wink, wink). Just don't step too far out of line, mmkay?

What I find especially creepy is how Facebook tracks my actions on third-party websites.

For example, the other day, I searched for a hotel on Hotwire.com. Moments later, Facebook's sidebar ads were offering me a hotel in the very city that was the subject of my search.

This happens all the time, unfortunately. I imagine it would be different if I opened an Incognito tab for every little thing I did, but it's sad that I have to go to those lengths to keep Facebook from gathering information about me that isn't even being created on their site.

What I find especially creepy is how Facebook tracks my actions on third-party websites.

For example, the other day, I searched for a hotel on Hotwire.com. Moments later, Facebook's sidebar ads were offering me a hotel in the very city that was the subject of my search.

This happens all the time, unfortunately. I imagine it would be different if I opened an Incognito tab for every little thing I did, but it's sad that I have to go to those lengths to keep Facebook from gathering information about me that isn't even being created on their site.

This phrase is meaningless. Which terrorists have won? There's a thousand fractious groups each with their own goals - pretty specific ones. Some want to counter US/western influence that keeps them out of power, others just hate Israel and Jews, and others are truly radical militant Islamists. The US could strike all protections out of the Constitution, and none of their stated goals (eradication of Isreal, US out of Asia, etc.) would be accomplished. It's a lazy simplification to call terrorists "freedom hating." Our loss of freedom is completely orthogonal to their goals (except insomuch as it costs the US money to do so).

The terrorists that acted. The aftermath of their actions were destructive past the violence it inflicted, and crippled civil liberties and human rights worldwide. There are yet few Western nations to embrace the inherent risks that complement liberty - conforming to safety as opposed to upholding principle in the face of danger. As far this might stray from their goals, in some way we are completely defeated. Essentially, the actions of terrorism held more sway to the actions of government then it's voting public, And when the state decides to act against terrorism at a cost to the people, the terrorist might not have won, but we continue to lose.

The whole concept of a "war on terror" is stupid because you cannot effectively wage war on an emotion or state of mind in the way you wage war on a foreign (or domestic) foe. I'd like to believe you understand that, but your post implies you don't.

Not that I'm a particular fan of it, but the "War on Terror" is not a war against an emotion, it's a struggle against acts of terrorism and those who want to commit them. I'd like to believe you understand that...

War on Terror is a terrible hyperbole. In reality it's a "Pre-emptive Military Strike against any Militant Opposition that may or may not lead to Acts of Terrorism against the US or it's Allies." And in it's efforts it is completely counter-productive.

Their goal was to extract a price from America for the various sins that perceive America to have committed. There, they have succeeded. An attack that was not, even remotely, an existentialist threat was turned into one by America itself.

There is shooting yourself in the foot. Then, there's the "War on Terror".

Ah, so you think the genius terrorist leaders wanted America to spend itself to bancrupcy over the War on Terror. What the Soviet Union failed to do in 40 of arms and space race, they thought they could achieve. Yeah, clearly not idiots.

What is the price America paid following 9/11. I mean, there's loss of civil rights and stuff, pretty sure that's gloriously celebrated all the time. There was the war in Afghanistan, which was probably covered by the Army's loose budget. And there was Iraq, a war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

So, in what way have the terrorists succeeded, provided they did not take up suicide attacks to piss off Ars commenters?

Ah, so you think the genius terrorist leaders wanted America to spend itself to bancrupcy over the War on Terror. What the Soviet Union failed to do in 40 of arms and space race, they thought they could achieve. Yeah, clearly not idiots.

What is the price America paid following 9/11. I mean, there's loss of civil rights and stuff, pretty sure that's gloriously celebrated all the time. There was the war in Afghanistan, which was probably covered by the Army's loose budget. And there was Iraq, a war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

So, in what way have the terrorists succeeded, provided they did not take up suicide attacks to piss off Ars commenters?

People still seem to believe the "they hate our freedom"-nonsense.

Bin Laden was a pretty smart guy, and he absolutely knew that a single large-scale, high visibility attack on U.S. soil would lead to massive retaliation on the part of our leaders and the spending of and spilling of dollars and blood that we simply could not afford.

Re: Soviet Union, the Soviet upper-echelon was well aware throughout much of the Cold War that they would never be able to outspend the Americans when it came to the weapons and infrastructure of war. Brezhnev (explicitly, and probably those before him implicitly) knew that his country had to choose between feeding its people and keeping up with American military power. Privately they were desperate for a deescalation and end to the Cold War, but hardline factions within the Communist Party would not allow for unilateral disarmament or a reduction in military industry. Ironically, the Iron Curtain and a general failure of American HUMINT with regards to the goings on within the USSR allowed the Americans to develop a longstanding fear of Soviet military parity and [insert weapon here]-gaps that simply never existed.

Re: the second invasion of Iraq, anyone who listened to what the neocons themselves explicitly wrote (see: PNAC et al.) could have correctly surmised that even before the Bush II Administration they were looking for any excuse to topple and take Baghdad. Saddam didn't have to have any involvement in 9/11; the day George W. Bush was elected and his cast of cronies was destined to once again take the reins of American foreign policy, Saddam's days were numbered.

I could grant that not many had the foresight to predict just how significantly and horribly America would end up botching the occupation and nation-building aspect of the Iraqi War (namely having no plan whatsoever for what to do after the Ba'athists were deposed) and the colossal amounts of funds which would be deposited directly into that figurative furnace, but Bin Laden was without question on an intellectual parity with those who could have predicted that the American government was just itching to dive headfirst into the hornet's nest of a protracted military presence in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The terrorists knew that one consequence of 9/11 would be America scratching its nose with a cleaver, because anyone who has been paying attention would have come to the same conclusion.

This is why I stay the fuck out of Facebook and why I ought to be more careful with search engines.

Regarding the Google tracking cookies, however, it's probably not quite as bad as it's made out to be. Yes, the cookies are per machine (per web browser, actually), but as long as you're not signed into an account, they're not tracking "you" so much as they are "someone behind this NAT."

I have four routers and run an open AP for guests, so, "I couldn't possibly know who searched for $X, my wifi is open, could have been family members, friends, neighbors or passers-by."

Bin Laden was a pretty smart guy, and he absolutely knew that a single large-scale, high visibility attack on U.S. soil would lead to massive retaliation on the part of our leaders and the spending of and spilling of dollars and blood that we simply could not afford.

I'm not entirely sure of that. Osama bin Laden was definitely well-funded and well-connected. He certainly knew people who could put machinery into his obsessed ideas of striking the US. But I don't see any evidence that he was a real mastermind himself, or that he had planned out consequences farther in advance than lashing out at the US in a very big way. Once a relative few of the high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders were taken out, the entire threat of well-planned attacks against the US like 9/11 basically evaporated because nobody else was that smart. This took place well before bin Laden's death in a pretty hopeless position, hiding out in an janky Pakistani mansion. If bin Laden himself was such a potent threat and intellectual adversary, why couldn't he mount any effective counter-attacks or even any new terrorist attacks against the US? It certainly wasn't because we just got that good at stopping terrorists. It's probably because the few real brains behind their successes were already captured or dead by that point. Bin Laden strikes me as less of a brain and more of a will + pocketbook. All he did was terrorism, and terrorism almost never works. He had a longtime monomaniacal obsession with his unrealistic fantasies of taking out the US and influencing our policies in the Muslim World by cowing us into submission with terrorism. Getting the US even more entrenched in the region, and having us exercise even greater military power against Muslim men and women across the Muslim World, was pretty much the opposite of what he wanted. I see no evidence that we were just acting according to some larger plan of his to have us pound Eurasian Muslims even harder to make them hate us more, or something. That's ascribing comic book villain logic onto a real human being.

Quote:

The terrorists knew that one consequence of 9/11 would be America scratching its nose with a cleaver, because anyone who has been paying attention would have come to the same conclusion.

Unless they were deluded, which those who resort to terrorism usually are. Because a sober analysis of geopolitics and history doesn't require much intellect to tell one that terrorism just doesn't work.

You can try to stretch the fourth amendment , but once you stretch it so much to the point of changing the meaning of an amendment like what happened to the second one, you are effectively rewriting the amendment , via sloppy interpretation, thus devaluating the US constitution .

Are you telling me that I am only allowed to speak my mind on sheep skin parchment written in iron gall ink? Am I allowed to vocally speak using anything but English as it was used in 1776?

Because I am totally in favor of "stretching" the First Amendment to cover things like internet blogs, typewriters, Facebook comments, etc.

Okay, Facebook comments is really stretching it.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm pretty sure that covers everything, including metadata from my phone, my emails. I'm pretty sure public Facebook comments aren't exactly covered because, well, they're public. Or does the effects part only mean terrible CGI I may or may not produce in my spare time?

To all of you US taxpayers, here's an interesting exercise to do. First, find out how much has been spent on the 'homeland security' part of the 'war on terror'. Now I know that you can't know exactly, 'black ops' expenditures and all, but try to get at least close to what has been publicly acknowledged... OK, got that figure? My best guess is something like about 1.3 trillion USD. Now divide that by possibly how many lives have been saved. OK, I gave them lots of doubtful benefits, and came up with 240 tops. Now divide 1.3 trillion by 240.... WOW! the worth of a Yank has really gone up lately... And the value of your privacy? Worthless...

So you wait for the eventual DVD release, except, they always come out quietly and by the time they do, you've forgotten all about it and in the end never bother seeing it. There's probably a dozen good documentaries that Ars and others have mentioned that I've miseed, and I can't remember their titles to go see 'em.

I keep a text file in my Dropbox for this very reason, which I update wherever I may be, when I hear about an interesting new film.

Then, when I'm in the mood to watch a good film, I completely forget about the text file and end up watching some random crap .

What I find especially creepy is how Facebook tracks my actions on third-party websites.

For example, the other day, I searched for a hotel on Hotwire.com. Moments later, Facebook's sidebar ads were offering me a hotel in the very city that was the subject of my search.

This happens all the time, unfortunately. I imagine it would be different if I opened an Incognito tab for every little thing I did, but it's sad that I have to go to those lengths to keep Facebook from gathering information about me that isn't even being created on their site.

You think that's creepy? I get ads for fertility clinics and the like. Why? I guess it's because my wife has spent time looking for info about fertility-treatments and the like, and Facebook knows that she is my wife.

Regarding the Google tracking cookies, however, it's probably not quite as bad as it's made out to be. Yes, the cookies are per machine (per web browser, actually), but as long as you're not signed into an account, they're not tracking "you" so much as they are "someone behind this NAT."

Though, in reality, they can probably easily identify and distinguish individual computers, even though many may use your WiFi and you have multiple break-outs: https://panopticlick.eff.org/.

Blocking cookies and not logging on, is no guarantee that websites cannot accurately link your various visits together.

Browsers leak so much information, that it's fairly trivial to distinguish between computers - even across browsers, regardless of private/incognito/porn mode being on and without being logged on or accepting cookies.

I'm not entirely sure of that. Osama bin Laden was definitely well-funded and well-connected. He certainly knew people who could put machinery into his obsessed ideas of striking the US. But I don't see any evidence that he was a real mastermind himself, or that he had planned out consequences farther in advance than lashing out at the US in a very big way. Once a relative few of the high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders were taken out, the entire threat of well-planned attacks against the US like 9/11 basically evaporated because nobody else was that smart. This took place well before bin Laden's death in a pretty hopeless position, hiding out in an janky Pakistani mansion. If bin Laden himself was such a potent threat and intellectual adversary, why couldn't he mount any effective counter-attacks or even any new terrorist attacks against the US? It certainly wasn't because we just got that good at stopping terrorists. It's probably because the few real brains behind their successes were already captured or dead by that point. Bin Laden strikes me as less of a brain and more of a will + pocketbook. All he did was terrorism, and terrorism almost never works. He had a longtime monomaniacal obsession with his unrealistic fantasies of taking out the US and influencing our policies in the Muslim World by cowing us into submission with terrorism. Getting the US even more entrenched in the region, and having us exercise even greater military power against Muslim men and women across the Muslim World, was pretty much the opposite of what he wanted. I see no evidence that we were just acting according to some larger plan of his to have us pound Eurasian Muslims even harder to make them hate us more, or something. That's ascribing comic book villain logic onto a real human being.

Quote:

The terrorists knew that one consequence of 9/11 would be America scratching its nose with a cleaver, because anyone who has been paying attention would have come to the same conclusion.

Unless they were deluded, which those who resort to terrorism usually are. Because a sober analysis of geopolitics and history doesn't require much intellect to tell one that terrorism just doesn't work.

Sorry to lack citations, but I recall reading that Bin Laden explicitly spoke about undermining the U.S. through economic warfare by getting the Americans embroiled in adventurism it could ill afford. I'm not convinced that he ever thought that followup attacks would be necessary as far as his personal involvement was concerned. Boosting the Al Qaida brand was a convenient byproduct that could yield propaganda dividends, but the main focus was to create a situation which would parallel the Soviet experience of its ill-fated invasion and ultimately untenable occupation of Afghanistan.

I agree that he was less of a planner and more of an executive financier, but he never operated in a vacuum, at least prior to the escalation of the GWOT. He had subordinates and networked with others of like-mind who I am sure influenced the strategy which underpinned his actions. I'm not sure that the lives and well-being of fellow Muslims weighed particularly heavy on his conscience, and I think he was educated well enough to understand that the only way the U.S. would ever get out of the Muslim world is if it became economically untenable for them to maintain a presence.

If you deny that the American reaction to 9/11 was more than a happy accident in the context of Bin Laden and his organization's goals, then you can make the argument that terrorism has never yielded fruit. At the risk of giving them too much credit, I cannot assume that position.

To the author:Please provide the direct links to Ghostery and Disconnect so that readers can easily navigate to them and use them (they could search on the web, but direct links are quicker to use). I don't think Ghostery needs a Wikipedia link mention in the article.

Disconnect is available at http://disconnect.me/ and as pointed out by beebee above in the PRISM break link, is a free (as in non-proprietary) alternative to Ghostery.